Rules Committee Meets

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

The Rules Committee of the Democratic National Convention met today in Denver to discuss how to change the rules for the 2012 nomination:

Democrats moved Saturday to change the way they nominate presidential candidates and avoid a repeat of this year's primary scramble.

But they shied away from substantive debate such as whether to take away Iowa and New Hampshire's jealously guarded status as the nation's first vetting grounds for presidential candidates.

As a rules panel within the Democratic National Convention Committee voted unanimously Saturday to start talking about how to avoid a repeat of this year's jammed up primary schedule, party leaders sought to put off substantive — and divisive — talk about how to do that until after this year's campaign.

Read more...

There appears to be broad consensus among Democrats that the nomination process needs to be reformed in light of this year's seismic battle between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and nominee-to-be Barack Obama.

However, Democrats who set up the commission said it's unlikely to tinker with the states that now have early caucuses and primaries.

"Everybody sees a real need for us to reform the way we do this," said former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, who introduced a plan Saturday to examine the schedule. But Hodges added that his state's status as one of the earliest to choose a nominee won't change.

"The first four states, those aren't going anywhere," Hodges told reporters, referring to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
...
More pressing, Democrats said Saturday, is to review the role of superdelegates. A mystery to most Americans until this year, superdelegates are party insiders and elected officials who can vote for whomever they choose for president, regardless of who wins their state. The reform commission's language includes a pledge to reduce the number of superdelegates.

"This year, superdelegates comprised 20 percent of our national delegation. Yet the vast majority of the public had no idea what superdelegates were until this year," said Michael Coleman, mayor of Columbus, Ohio, a committee member and convention delegate. "The role they played in our nominating process actually distracted us from the important issues we were debating."

The commission will also review caucuses, which were deftly maneuvered by Obama this year to counter large-state victories by Clinton. Several Democrats who met Saturday said caucuses need to be more inclusive and that the party should require the same voter-access measures in place during general elections, such as secret ballots and absentee voting.

The reforms are to be proposed by 2010 and in place by the 2012 presidential contest. But even as the rules committee broke into applause as some members complained about this year's frenetic primary scramble, party leaders sought to put off potentially divisive debate about how exactly the nominating process should change.

Is 2008 the end of the conventions as we know them?

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

There's an underlying rumble under the runups to both conventions - will these be the last conventions as we know them: 4 days, expenses over $100 million? It's a topic that really won't be addressed until next year, but the rumblings are there.

First, Obama's move to Invesco. What this is showing is that you can put on a convention with a week of preparations, not 6 weeks. Sure, you're only doing one night, but it's the most important night. Once the DNCC releases plans for their podiums in both places, we'll be able to see some of what was not done in Invesco. One thing there won't be in Invesco is all the wiring on the floor: For example, when we have the roll call on Wednesday, each state delegation chair will announce their votes on a microphone. That infrastructure won't be there on Thursday. Is all that infrastructure really necessary?

Here's what Howard Dean said last year:

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Thursday the days of the $60 million political convention coronations are numbered and he's studying ways to make them more relevant to average people.
...
"We've got to change the way we do conventions in this country. I'm looking to try to make this a transitional convention, in the sense that the day of the $50-$60 million convention is coming to a close.

But the real question is, will any cities bid for the conventions in the future?

CQ wrote in 2006:

There are long lists of logistic requirements demanded by the parties, including a single convention venue that can accommodate thousands of delegates and party officials and many thousands more journalists who will cover the proceedings, and at least 20,000 hotel rooms and 2,000 suites for participants that are located within a reasonable commute to the arena. And this is on top of security measures and costs that have greatly escalated since the onset of the “9/11 era.”

It is not very surprising, therefore, that most cities take a deep breath and decide that it would better to watch the conventions from afar.

And I wrote:

One of these years, there won't be any cities that want to put up any money to host the convention, and the parties will have to raise a lot more money if they still want to have them.

Also, from the Wall Street Journal:

As Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul prepare to host this summer's national political conventions, there are mounting signs security costs and fund-raising headaches are causing cities to think twice about hosting such events.

The national conventions often are touted as signs of prestige as well as immediate boons to local economies. But the strains of putting on a grand show for the Democratic and Republican gatherings, where the presidential candidates are nominated, are becoming more evident this summer, especially as the host cities cope with post-9/11 security demands.

But will anything actually change? Here's the problem. As long as the convention planning is under the control of the national committees, things won't change - the national committees are unlikely to do anything different, and once plans are set in place, it's difficult to change them once a nominee is picked in the spring of the election year.

But when the Obama folks (assuming he wins, of course) are in control of planning for the next convention, they can impose a vision of what type of convention they would like to have. And given what they're doing this year, I would expect that the 2012 Democratic Convention may look very different than we're used to.

Update: Ed Kilgore writes on a similar subject, and reaches a similar conclusion. He ends:

As I write these words, I am preparing to work in the speech/script operation for my sixth consecutive Democratic Convention. After each of the last five, convention professionals invariably said to each other: "Well, that's the last time we'll do this kind of convention!" But this time, I think that may finally be true.

How should the Democrats change their nomination process?

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

From Paul in the comments:

• "Should we scrap the superdelegate system?"
• "How can we improve proportional allocation?"
• "Is there a way to keep states in line in the future?"
• "Are we always going to have a situation where Iowa and New Hampshire get primacy over the other states?"
• "Is there a way to assure that pledged delegates will vote for the candidate that they are assigned to?"
• "66% of the delegates were chosen over a fifteen day period and, later, we went six weeks with no primaries at all. Is there a way to 'smooth things out' so that delegates are chosen in a more orderly way?"
• "Are caucuses really democratic? Should we continue to allow them?"
• "Is the 15% threshold for viability a good idea -- would it be possible for voters to express 'preference' so that if their candidate isn't viable they can vote for one who is?"

And any other related issues you want to bring up.